ABSTRACT
In this review, it is aimed to explain the use of imaging methods, especially positron emission tomography/computerized tomography, their use in diagnosis and follow-up, and their place in current guidelines in multiple myeloma and other plasma cell dyscrasias. The increasing importance of functional imaging methods in both predicting the clinical course and evaluating the treatment response has been emphasized.
References
1Barlogie B, Shaughnessy J, Epstein J, et al. Plasma cell myeloma. In: Williams Hematology, 7th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. p. 1501-1533.
2Hillengass J, Usmani S, Rajkumar SV, et al. International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:302-312.
3Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:538-548.
4Terpos E, Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA. Advances in imaging and the management of myeloma bone bisease. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1907-1915.
5Sollini M, Galimberti S, Boni R, et al. Diagnostic applications of nuclear medicine: multiple myeloma. In: Nuclear Oncology. Strauss H, Mariani G, Volterrani D, Larson S, editors. Cham: Springer; 2017.
6Agool A, Slart RHJA, Dierckx RAJO, et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy might be useful for detecting skeleton abnormalities in patients with multiple myeloma and plasmacytoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:124-130.
7Nanni C, Zamagni E. Therapy assessment in multiple myeloma with PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;44:111-117.
8Wolf MB, Murray F, Kilk K, et al. Sensitivity of whole-body CT and MRI versus projection radiography in the detection of osteolyses in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:1222-1230.
9Hillengass J, Moulopoulos LA, Delorme S, et al. Findings of whole body computed tomography compared with conventional skeletal survey in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disorders - a study of the ınternational myeloma working group. Blood 2016;128:4468.
10Hinge M, Andersen KT, Lund T, et al. Baseline bone involvement in multiple myeloma - a prospective comparison of conventional X-ray, lowdose computed tomography, and 18flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in previously untreated patients. Haematologica 2016;101:415-418.
11Princewill K, Kyere S, Awan O, et al. Multiple myeloma lesion detection with whole body CT versus radiographic skeletal survey. Cancer Invest 2013;31:206-211.
12Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:525-531.
13Moulopoulos LA, Koutoulidis V, Hillengass J, et al. Recommendations for acquisition, interpretation and reporting of whole body low dose CT in patients with multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a report of the IMWG Bone Working Group. Blood Cancer J 2018;8:95.
14Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, et al. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2007;92:50-55.
15Spinnato P, Bazzocchi A, Brioli A, et al. Contrast enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG PET-CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: a comparison of results in different phases of the disease. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:4013-4018.
16van Lammeren-Venema D, Regelink JC, Riphagen II, et al. ¹⁸F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in assessment of myeloma-related bone disease: a systematic review. Cancer 2012;118:1971-1981.
17Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009;50:11-20.
18Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2011;118:5989-5995.
19Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL, et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 2009;114:2068-2076.
20Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a consensus statement by the International Myeloma Working Group. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:206-217.
21Rasche L, Angtuaco E, McDonald JE, et al. Low expression of hexokinase-2 is associated with false-negative FDG-positron emission tomography in multiple myeloma. Blood 2017;130:30-34.
22Kyle RA, Larson DR, Therneau TM, et al. Long-term follow-up of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 2018;378:241-249.
23Adam Z, Krejci M, Stork M, et al. Diagnostic relevance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS): single-center experience. Neoplasma 2020;67:939-945.
24Kumar SK, Callander NS, Adekola K, et al. Multiple myeloma, version 3.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020;18:1685-1717.
25Dimopoulos MA, Moreau P, Terpos E, et al. Multiple myeloma: EHA-ESMO Clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2021;32:309-322.
26Fouquet G, Guidez S, Herbaux C, et al. Impact of initial FDG-PET/CT and serum-free light chain on transformation of conventionally defined solitary plasmacytoma to multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:3254-3260.
27Kastritis E, Moulopoulos LA, Terpos E, et al. The prognostic importance of the presence of more than one focal lesion in spine MRI of patients with asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2014;28:2402-2403.
28Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber MA, et al. Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1606-1610.
29Zamagni E, Nanni C, Gay F, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT focal, but not osteolytic, lesions predict the progression of smoldering myeloma to active disease. Leukemia 2016;30:417-422.
30Siontis B, Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, et al. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography in the diagnostic evaluation of smoldering multiple myeloma: identification of patients needing therapy. Blood Cancer J 2015;5:364.
31Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1121-1128.
32Usmani SZ, Mitchell A, Waheed S, et al. Prognostic implications of serial 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography in multiple myeloma treated with total therapy 3. Blood 2013;121:1819-1823.
33Moreau P, Attal M, Caillot D, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial: results of the IMAJEM study. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:2911-2918.
34Hillengass J, Ayyaz S, Kilk K, et al. Changes in magnetic resonance imaging before and after autologous stem cell transplantation correlate with response and survival in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2012;97:1757-1760.
35Moreau P, Attal M, Karlin L, et al. Prospective evaluation of MRI and PET-CT at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial. Blood 2015;126:395.
36Munshi NC, Avet-Loiseau H, Rawstron AC, et al. Association of minimal residual disease with superior survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2017;1:28-35.
37Zamagni E, Nanni C, Mancuso K, et al. PET/CT improves the definition of complete response and allows to detect otherwise unidentifiable skeletal progression in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21:4384-4390.
38Mesguich C, Fardanesh R, Tanenbaum L, et al. State of the art imaging of multiple myeloma: comparative review of FDG PET/CT imaging in various clinical settings. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:2203-2223.
39Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A, et al. Image interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: a new proposal from an Italian expert panel. IMPeTUs (Italian myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016;43:414-421.
40Zamagni, E, Nanni, C, Dozza L, et al. Standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT according to Deauville criteria for metabolic complete response definition in newly diagnosed transplant eligible multiple myeloma (mm) patients: Joint analysis of two prospective randomized phase III trials. Blood 2018;132:257.
41Zamagni E, Nanni C, Dozza L, et al. Standardization of 18F-FDG-PET/CT according to Deauville criteria for metabolic complete response definition in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2021;39:116-125.
42Nanni C. PET-FDG: Impetus. Cancers 2020;12:1030.
43Fonti R, Larobina M, Del Vecchio S, et al. Metabolic tumor volume assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT for the prediction of outcome in patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1829-1835.
44McDonald JE, Kessler MM, Gardner MW, et al. Assessment of total lesion glycolysis by 18F FDG PET/CT significantly improves prognostic value of GEP and ISS in myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:1981-1987.
45Vij R, Fowler KJ, Shokeen M. New approaches to molecular imaging of multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 2016;57:1-4.
46Revheim ME, Stokke C, Nørgaard JN, et al. New targets for PET imaging of myeloma. Hemato 2021;2:727-738.
47Nakamoto Y, Kurihara K, Nishizawa M, et al. Clinical value of (1)(1)C-methionine PET/CT in patients with plasma cell malignancy: comparison with (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:708-715.
48Lapa C, Kircher M, Da Via M, et al. Comparison of 11C-Choline and 11C-Methionine PET/CT in multiple myeloma. Clin Nucl Med 2019;448:620-624.
49Ullah TR. The role of CXCR4 in multiple myeloma: Cells’ journey from bone marrow to beyond. J Bone Oncol 2019;17:100253.
50Matteucci F, Paganelli G, Martinelli G, et al. PET/CT in multiple myeloma: Beyond FDG. Front Oncol 2021;25:622501.
51Kuyumcu S, Sanli Y, Subramaniam RM. Fibroblast-activated protein inhibitor PET/CT: cancer diagnosis and management. Front Oncol 2021;11:758958.
52Lan L, Liu H, Wang Y, et al. The potential utility of [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 as a novel broad-spectrum oncological and non-oncological imaging agent-comparison with [18F]FDG. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022;49:963-979.
53Sachpekidis C, Hillengass J, Goldschmidt H, et al. Comparison of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;5:469-478.
